Friday, October 8, 2010

Whatever support exists amongst Canadians for Stephen Harper’s income trust betrayal derives almost exclusively from the (false) belief that income trusts cause tax leakage. Meanwhile 95% of Canadians are unaware that Stephen Harper’s proof for such an allegation ONLY takes the form of 18 pages of blacked documents and that the argument of tax leakage is a complete hoax according to groups no less credible than the Royal Bank of Canada and PricewaterhouseCoopers. We have the Canadian media and totally lame and ineffective Opposition MPs to thank for this complete policy disconnect between true fact and public fiction.

Lawrence Martin’s book Harperland: The politics of control, does provide a glimpse into these matters.

Speaking of the politics of control, what better way to exercise control than to deny access to information as Harper did when he denied Canadians any proof of his allegations of tax leakage. What do you think Harper move on undermining the Census is all about if not to deny others with the facts. Martin writes:

“Many documents released [as alleged proof of tax leakage] under the [Access to Information] act were completely blacked out.”

In reality, all the documents that dealt with alleged tax leakage by the Harper government under the Access to Information were blacked out, and subsequently recalled by the Department of Finance, as Martin fails to report (despite the fact that such a “redacted recall” was to that point unprecedented in Canadian history)

We also learn from Lawrence Martin that CON MP James Rajotte from Edmonton played a behind the scenes role in Harper’s income trust betrayal, and Martin writes:

“But when [the income trust model] was beginning to be adopted by big manufacturers and service corporations, [Harper] was persuaded that it was the wrong way to go. James Rajotte, who served as chair of the industry committee, was of the same impression. But it was not the case Harper and Flaherty put to the public because corporate governance was too complex an issue.”

Persuaded by whom, one might ask, given that no public discussion took place apart from Harper’s election promise of that year to “never tax income trusts”. Harper surely must be referring to the likes of Gwyn Morgan and those CEOs with privileged access to the PMO and the PCO, as Canadians were completely left in the dark and out of the loop.

Meanwhile Canadians would have to be duped into supporting Harper’s massive flip flop on some basis or another.

So instead of revealing their true intentions behind this massive policy reversal and allowing Canadians and Parliament to debate the true intent of the policy, these politicians gravitated to an artificial argument that had no substance, but was sure to rally the necessary support of Canadians. This is pure political manipulation and deception. Rajotte along with Harper were prepared to hide their real reasons for their action (which would never have been sufficient to justify their actions) and manufactured what amounted to a completely bogus argument. This is exactly the same type of devious and deceptive and totally dishonest conduct that George Bush employed when he concocted the WMD argument to invade Iraq, a parallel that I drew for Canadians in a London Free Press Op Ed in November 2006 and which Lawrence Martin is now confirming to be true, courtesy of insights from Tom Flanagan, no less.

Therefore not only do we learn that James Rajotte was a participant in a massive deception and lie about the real intent of this policy, we also learn that he is a total hypocrite, since when James Rajotte first entered Parliament in 2000 he had this (lofty nonsense as it turns out) to say about the importance of accountability and transparency, which we subsequently learned meant issuing 18 pages of blacked out documents as proof of tax leakage, which the Conservatives were using as their manufactured rationale to kill income trusts for folks like Gwynn Morgan et al:Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here today in our national parliament on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southwest. Since this is my first address in this distinguished Chamber, I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the people of Edmonton Southwest. They have bestowed upon me a tremendous honour, but also a tremendous duty and a tremendous responsibility.

I am pleased to speak today to the official opposition motion. This motion speaks to the broad themes of democratic and parliamentary reform, accountability and transparency in government.

While this motion is specifically related to the ethics counsellor, it does relate to the broader themes of parliamentary and democratic reform, fiscal responsibility, accountability and transparency, and members of parliament themselves.

During the recent election, people in Edmonton spoke passionately about the need for accountability from the government to ensure they were respected as citizens and that their taxpayer dollars were treated as funds in trust.

A common frustration I encountered from people was that public officials did not seem accountable to them as citizens. They felt the only control they had was the opportunity every four years, or three and a half in this case, to walk into a polling booth and mark an X on a ballot.

One of the most serious problems facing Canadian democracy today is the concentration of political power within the Prime Minister's office and the lack of checks and balances to that power.

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Mr. Martin who never contacted the key source of the information concerning Income trusts.ie: CAITI.INFO - Canadian Ass. of Income Trust Investors/TaxpayersCAITI's solution to the issue which was the Marshall Plan, which was a win : win solution for the government and the pension issue in Canada.http://marshallplan.ca/index.html

As long as you show you contacted a professor you have done your job concerning the biggest fraud in this country by our government .- You forget the Catalyst proposal for Bell which never was accepted by the courts.- Flaherty was guest speaker at a private equity conference just a month after the income trust decision- The life insurance & private equity who lobbied to kill income trusts. - Removing the REIT status for senior living centres, basically throwing our seniors on the streets- Access to efficient capital to our small & mid cap business trusts who were mainly located in our most debted province of Ontario.

And the list goes on and what tax leakage, the numbers the numbers Mr Martin, where is your research on the claimed tax leakage?

Mr Martin you comment on this fraud of a life time in this country and you blow it with two pages !

I see James Rajotte regularly on the evening political shows from the CBC & CTV---he constantly spouts off about accountability & transparency & how they are the mainstay of his good Conservative government.

After I pick myself off of the floor after my laughing fit , I find I have an almost uncontrollable need to toss a wet dishrag at the tv.

This guy is so full of hoooeeey , he makes the boss in Iran look like an amateur.

This is the least accountable gov`t I have seen in my 60 years---they black-out pages at will , they fire anyone who disagrees , & they make mock of the democratic system we hold dear.

Next time I see this dufus show his face on the screen I will be reaching for the "mute" button fast.

The main qualification for a Con MP is to be a hypocrite. Any person who doesn't see that the Cons are the best bunch of hypocrites of all time simply has their eyes and ears closed.

When 18 pages of blacked out material can be submitted for justification for the theft of $35 billion in investors capital and yet a CON MP can stand up and say they are transparent well there's just no getting through to a liar like that.

Oh yeah and how about the book issued by the Cons about how to disrupt parliament? Now that’s transparent. Transparent that the Cons will do anything to disrupt the functioning of parliament.

EVENTS

Income Trust Halloween VigilThanks to all who participated in both the Ottawa and Calgary vigils to mark the anniversary of the announcement.

WE"D LIKE SOME ANSWERS

As you well know, the ‘income trust thing’ has grown beyond the
question of whether fair taxes are paid on income from trusts. It’s
become a giant dirty snowball, and as it rolls forward it accumulates
more and more bulk. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's list a few and invite our "Accountable" government and our free press to provide some much-needed answers.

It is said “Trusts are inefficient use of capital. Why?” Two
related questions are ‘Whose money is it, anyway?’, and ‘Do Canadian
investors have a free and efficient market?’

How can information that is already in the public domain at SEDAR
make for a state secret? How could such information be used to harm
the Canadian national interest? And who would cause the harm?

Why won’t the Canadian media investigate the falsehoods and
misrepresentations told by the Minister of Finance to a committee of
Parliament? Was the Minister in contempt of Parliament?

Why won’t the Canadian media report (a) government tax revenues
gained from BCE in 2006 when BCE was a corporation to (b) government
tax revenues that would be gained in 2007 from BCE, if BCE had been
allowed to proceed to a trust, and (c) government tax revenues that
will be gained in 2007 from BCE, when BCE ownership has been carved
up as 45% foreign ownership and 55% large Canadian pension fund
ownership?